Identity, individuality

Aupmanyav said:
... but at the level of truth, you are nothing more than a collection of molecules.
Click to expand...
But that's not a scientific fact, that's a scientific premise, and in scientific (and Advaita) discourse it has its adherents and its adversaries.

You have nailed your flag to that particular mast, but you offer no compelling reason (nor could you, nor should I ask you to) why others should necessarily agree.
 
From a vert weak position vis-a-vis Advaita, I took this off a search engine:
"Advaita teaches that our true identity (Atman) is not this limited persona, but pure, universal consciousness (Brahman) ... "

From the somewhat stronger Catholic position, I would say 'yes' to that statement, along the lines of the ability of individual consciousness that becomes so open and transparent to universal consciousness that, to use a well-worn analogy, the 'uncreated light' of the universal shines in and through the countenance of the individual, without the loss of individuality as something that transcends but undergirds the perceived persona.

I find a great metaphysical insight in the Rastarfari "I and I" – the scholar E. E. Cashmore said: "I and I is an expression to totalise the concept of oneness... When he's addressing a brethren as himself, he says "I am I" — as being the oneness of two persons. So God is within all of us and we're one people in fact... "I and I" means that God is in all humanity. The bond of Ras Tafari is the bond of God, of human." (Cashmore, Rastaman: The Rastafarian Movement in England, 1st ed., 1979, London: George Allen & Unwin. p.67 – language rendered gender neutral by myself).
 
Thomas said:
But that's not a scientific fact, that's a scientific premise, and in scientific (and Advaita) discourse it has its adherents and its adversaries.

You have nailed your flag to that particular mast, but you offer no compelling reason (nor could you, nor should I ask you to) why others should necessarily agree.
Click to expand...
That is a scientific fact. If we are more than molecules, then I would like to hear your evidence.
Adversaries do not matter. Not everyone would have the same belief. I accept that.
 
Thomas said:
From a vert weak position vis-a-vis Advaita, I took this off a search engine:
"Advaita teaches that our true identity (Atman) is not this limited persona, but pure, universal consciousness (Brahman) ... "

So God is within all of us and we're one people in fact... "I and I" means that God is in all humanity.
Click to expand...
That is an incorrect definition if you ask me. There is no universal consciousness.
By having God, the oneness is lost.
 
Aupmanyav said:
We live in a world which has two aspects, 1. perceived and 2. true.
At the perceived level you are an individual but at the level of truth, you are nothing more than a collection of molecules.
In Advaita philosophy of Hinduism, the first aspect is known as 'pragmatic truth' (Vyavaharika Satya) and the second aspect is known as 'absolute truth' (Paramarthika Satya). Both are true at their respective levels.
Click to expand...
I disagree with these claims.

1. Perception doesn't matter to the fact of selves. Perception in experience without bias is a looking glass into the nature and evidence of selves.

2. This idea that we are a collection of molecules is mere appearance. There are non physical realities like character qualities such as honesty, and mental realities such as ideas and understandings, knowledge and ways of knowing. These things have a dimension of existence.
 
Aupmanyav said:
That is a scientific fact. If we are more than molecules, then I would like to hear your evidence.
Click to expand...
That we are a collection of molecules is a fact.

That "we are nothing more than that" is scientifically disputed, as that 'fact' cannot explain the problem of consciousness, and scientists and philosophers have offered alternative perspectives, philosophical propositions based on the interpretation of the available data.

While materialism aligns with scientific success in explaining demonstrable natural processes, it remains an interpretive framework. Scientific facts are derived from evidence, but the conclusion that only matter exists is a philosophical inference drawn from that evidence, not a fact itself.
 
Thomas said:
That we are a collection of molecules is a fact.

That "we are nothing more than that" is scientifically disputed, as that 'fact' cannot explain the problem of consciousness, and scientists and philosophers have offered alternative perspectives, philosophical propositions based on the interpretation of the available data.

While materialism aligns with scientific success in explaining demonstrable natural processes, it remains an interpretive framework. Scientific facts are derived from evidence, but the conclusion that only matter exists is a philosophical inference drawn from that evidence, not a fact itself.
Click to expand...
Whatever happens in brain is caused by the molecules which exist there. That includes consciousness also.
Matter is just a form of energy. Matter is a mirage. What remains are the four fundamental interactions.
That is the limit of our knowledge.
 
Aupmanyav said:
Whatever happens in brain is caused by the molecules which exist there. That includes consciousness also.
Matter is just a form of energy. Matter is a mirage. What remains are the four fundamental interactions.
That is the limit of our knowledge.
Click to expand...
It might be the limit of our scientific knowledge..
..but knowledge itself, is not limited to what you think it should be.

I don't know of anybody who has a degree in every academic area. ;)
Some people have a broader range than others.
 
Aupmanyav said:
My belief, Advaita (non-duality) is exactly the same as science.
There is no dichotomy.
Click to expand...
I am curious. Is your belief in Advaita coming from intellectual basis? or experiential ? Because the brain does not, by default, tend to perceive this reality as nondual. And consciousness itself could be a fundamental interaction of this reality. The brain may just be a finite organ for filtering it as I believe some have said.
 
Aupmanyav said:
Whatever happens in brain is caused by the molecules which exist there. That includes consciousness also.
Matter is just a form of energy. Matter is a mirage. What remains are the four fundamental interactions.
That is the limit of our knowledge.
Click to expand...
That is not the limit of our knowledge. Our knowledge has a much wider scope of domains. Your brain has interpreted what it experienced and selected boundaries for what it defines as knowledge. Admittedly, that is fine by me because I think certainty of knowledge can only come from experience. And that affects where we cast our nets for info. Sadly, the closemindedness of scientism is now taught as the sole truth to our youth in modern schools and they are turned away at many points from the path of questioning it.

Things like NDEs and nondual being are dismissed as 'not real'. Have you read any of William James work? Or Iain McGilchrist? They are key scientists in psychology and neurology who researched and discovered aspects of the world that science cannot define empirically and didn't dismiss it automatically despite that but explored further. If you haven't checked out James' Varieties of Religious Experience or McGilChrist's The Matter With Things, you may find it more mind opening.
 
muhammad_isa said:
It might be the limit of our scientific knowledge..
..but knowledge itself, is not limited to what you think it should be.

I don't know of anybody who has a degree in every academic area. ;)
Some people have a broader range than others.
Click to expand...
When, where I said that knowledge should be limited? We get to know more as we search. But evidence is necessary for validation of any knowledge. Just because some unlettered person said so centuries ago is not validation of anything.
Sure, people with no degrees can also have knowledge, but claims require evidence, otherwise they are worth nothing.
 
Vasu Devan said:
I am curious. Is your belief in Advaita coming from intellectual basis? or experiential ? Because the brain does not, by default, tend to perceive this reality as nondual. And consciousness itself could be a fundamental interaction of this reality. The brain may just be a finite organ for filtering it as I believe some have said.
Click to expand...
I reject any experiential evidence. That is valid for only one person. My views are based on evidence and intellectual analysis.
Consciousness is an emergent property of brain. It gets erased when a person dies. There is no evidence which is contrary to this.
Yes, brain is a finite organ for filtering validity of what we come to know. Some of what we come across are brash lies, some is true.
 
Vasu Devan said:
Sadly, the closemindedness of scientism is now taught as the sole truth to our youth in modern schools and they are turned away at many points from the path of questioning it.

Things like NDEs and nondual being are dismissed as 'not real'. Have you read any of William James work? Or Iain McGilchrist? They are key scientists in psychology and neurology who researched and discovered aspects of the world that science cannot define empirically and didn't dismiss it automatically despite that but explored further. If you haven't checked out James' Varieties of Religious Experience or McGilChrist's The Matter With Things, you may find it more mind opening.
Click to expand...
Science is not close minded. It continually checks the truth of what we come to know. Theories may come up but if the evidence does not fit it, they are rejected.
NDE is hallucination. Why should I read trash like William James when science has a very clear view about NDE. Kindly read this article in Wikipedia: Near-death experience - Wikipedia.
I see the value of what Iian McGilchrist says. But he is not advocating a theist view.
 
Aupmanyav said:
I reject any experiential evidence. That is valid for only one person. My views are based on evidence and intellectual analysis.
Consciousness is an emergent property of brain. It gets erased when a person dies. There is no evidence which is contrary to this.
Yes, brain is a finite organ for filtering validity of what we come to know. Some of what we come across are brash lies, some is true.
Click to expand...
Ah well, with no experiential we can only interpret based on secondary sources. We have to experience to know. I can agree the body gets erased on death. We don't yet know what happens to awareness/consciousness when the body dies. Some people who have died spoke of another reality being experienced for a while. But admittedly I will only know for certain after I die and experience physical death myself. My experience of nonduality gives me lived in experience of being infinite. So I know what infinity is beyond the typical intellectual concept of it as an imaginary number.

Also re your next post, empirical evidence is NOT the only source of evidence. But I get that can be hard to believe if you haven't experienced Advaita. And I agree that McGilChrist is not pushing the orthodox theism as his angle. Just that left brain biased thinking depends more on made up maps of the world while right brain uses experiential evidence so he agrees that mystical and religious can be deeper sources of truth than just left brain models.

Your belief that NDE is hallucination without having actual experience of it is a typical focus of left brain bias. Its dependence on secondary sources for truth are a part of the obsession with using maps for truth determination. Not your fault because that is how the youths of current world are being indoctrinated by schools. McGilchrist suggests that we open up from that fixation. I am not a theist, just someone who has experienced the love of the all and believe that is what will manifest when I die. For me, god didnt create the universe but rather is the universe. God is not separate from anything and I rather believe that is what we experience when our filtering organ dies. But that is also my interpretation interpolated from experiencing infinite being. I hope you do experience nondual being then you will have a better idea of what its like. Good luck!
 
Aupmanyav said:
Just because some unlettered person said so centuries ago is not validation of anything..
Click to expand...
That is obvious to us all, regardless of beliefs.
The effects of Christianity and Islam on civilisation world-wide cannot be denied.
I highly doubt whether this happened by accident.

Clearly, the underlying philosophies are not insignificant, and neither was Judaism as their forerunners.
..and then we have Zoroastrianism, along similar lines, more than 3000 years ago.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top